The following is based on a MCT and Dee Neely discussion about words. 

Dee NeelyPermalink Reply by Dee Neely yesterday

Words don't have meaning on the objective scale. They are symbols which relate to ideas, but they aren't objective. They are subjective. They are subjective depending on condition, on circumstance, on culture, on language...

Take the word power which we are discussing. The English word "power" has 20 different meanings according tohttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/power

This makes the word very, very subjective. Science and mathematics are the only reliable way to determine meaning.

Your statement than many people have been powerful and not corrupt bears investigation.  I would be interested in seeing who you think qualifies as powerful and not corrupt so we can compare.

MCTPermalink Reply by MCT yesterday

"Words don't have meaning on the objective scale."

-Abject nonsense. The concept of ability is objective, whether we refer to it with the phoneme power or ability. It has necessary characteristics that are real and reducible to perceptual evidence in any language. We remove the unique subjective perceptions when we form concepts, that's what makes them concepts. Your willingness and attempt to defeat the process of definition by essentials cannot invalidate that XBox is an electric gaming system, no matter how you cut it. It is not a relative or subjective concept. It has necessary essentials. It is definitely some things and not others. Words, the phonemes for concepts, having objective meanings is necessary for communication about this one objective reality we all inhabit. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. This is not a subjective definition, in fact, if it is a definition, it is not subjective. Objectification of our perceptions is necessary for language development. Cortically, this is exactly what is going on. Our cortex examines multiple versions of patterns of perceptual evidence about something that actually exists in reality and after we remove or omit the subjective arbitrary characteristics, such as color and material, in the case of a chair, and retain the objective characteristics, such as shape and purpose, we can hold this in place, attach a phoneme and communicate to others or hold in our awareness for comparing and contrasting other things like and dislike it. This is how we make knowledge. This is very consistent with new successful models of artifical intelligence, most notably Jeff Hawkins' Hierarchical Temporal Memory. Concept formation, which is necessary for rational thought and communication is the objectification of our perceptions. And someone who has the ability to walk, also, objectively has the power to walk.

Views: 1485

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So, how about this.

  

Words are designed to be objective but can only be interpreted subjectively.

I think that nails it ;-)

sounds good leveni

Words are thought of first as sounds, and we all know that in the physical world there is no such thing as sound and/or color. In the absence of a conscious subject all remains simply vibrations. The wonderful world of color and sound is our creation, a biological readout, a world interpreted by the way it effects our personal biology--our apparent verses ultimate reality. So, no words are not I think objective or designed to be objective, words are one like biology communicating with another like biology about subjective experiences of an apparent common reality. The only thing objective about words, is the vibrations which constitute a stimulus which is to be later interpreted through our biology as sound.  

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Leon Gretsky replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
5 minutes ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's blog post Is god good?
7 minutes ago
Glen Rosenberg replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
8 minutes ago
Ceil replied to Ceil's discussion An interesting discussion on Santa...
9 minutes ago
Scott DeLong liked Dan Barker's profile
10 minutes ago
Leon Gretsky replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
11 minutes ago
Glen Rosenberg replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
14 minutes ago
Leon Gretsky replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
17 minutes ago
Glen Rosenberg replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
20 minutes ago
Leon Gretsky replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
23 minutes ago
Daniel W replied to Ceil's discussion An interesting discussion on Santa...
32 minutes ago
Daniel W replied to Daniel W's discussion Winter Solstice Dec 21st
36 minutes ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service